What value do I provide if I agree to be a tester for someone, but find no bugs? Apparently none, but I'd still expect to be paid for it.
Similarly, the value of having users is obvious. Even if no specific user is overly useful, each of them is testing the software (something of value to you) and advertising the project, if only by their part in downloading it and inflating the statistics.
It's a classic free razor/buy the blades model. We give away access, hoping that the people we've reached will become valuable contributors. Their 'payment' up front isn't 'enough', but we hope to make it up on increased contributions and such over the years. If you can be said to own a razor (after theoretically not paying a reasonable price) then the same can be said for the GPL being binding on both parties. You merely agree to do a simply activity which will likely encourage more later. I give you copyright license in trade.
The no-consideration argument only works with people who don't see a clear business value in releasing GPLed code. For everyone else the deal is very clear.
he argument about there being no consideration is weak. The author gets access to GPLed software, users, testers, and advertising. Regardless of what the GPL is, it creates contractual obligations in both parties, obligations that can't simply be shrugged off after acceptance.
I think the parent's point was that even their own changes become encumbered by using your GPL'd patches. Then they must go further back and reinvent more to be at code they own fully.
I don't understand the no-consideration angle. GPLing your project is a great way to get publicity and attract developers. That's got at least as much value as a Want-Ad posting. And testers aren't free.
The user receives software and the right to use it, the developer receives goodwill, testers, and advertising.
The only problem is that it's not direct. You can accept the GPL even if you live in a bubble and never contribute. There might not be consideration in any given instant.
Contracts of sale don't explicitly spell out that they are irrevocable, it's how sales work.
Similarly, you can't reasonably write a license that doesn't require your participation, doesn't record a start date, can be re-entered by the person at will, can be re-granted at will, etc, to be limited in span. It would require future communication to even allow the GPL to be revocable, something it does not require. You need never speak to the author, let alone after accepting the GPL.
You could not reasonably expect to be able to revoke this contract, and thus could not reasonably expect to have it revoked upon you. Many contracts and licenses contain language, and requirements (paying for access, asking permission again in x years, etc). There are clear ways to write these contracts and the GPL contains none of them. Further, the author picked the license, presumably because he understood it and liked it. If this was a case of a user who entered into a GPL-like contract with little knowledge, they might reasonably make the claim that the irrevocable nature was unreasonable. Instead, the author, the only party with the ability to negotiate terms, explicitly picked this license.
Finally, I don't see why a later indication of his changing intent matters. He offered a deal, people accepted it. Case closed. He seems to have decided that he shouldn't have offered that deal, but he did and is bound by it. It's the nature of people to feel buyer's/seller's remorse when they find the true value of things, but sales are still final (with some exceptions).
An ongoing contract, sure. But the GPL acceptance is instantaneous, like a contract of sale. At that moment these people were given the right to re-release the software, under their own GPL license. He can cancel his original offer (provided he communicates his cancellation properly and to the right people) but he can't force other to play along.
The GPL isn't written as being limited in length, and offering a period of use. It's all or nothing, no rights, or full rights to redistribute under the GPL. Expecting that to be revocable is like expecting your car purchase to be revocable, years later after the fact. If your purchase was a lease... otherwise, no.
Copyright law isn't relevant here. Nor, is his original offer. He certainly isn''t releasing anymore copies of the work, but his deal (accepted license) with original downloaders can't be canceled by his later actions.
He's within his rights to stop sharing, but can't force others to heed his request.
IMHO it makes sense for us to expect MySpace to not unflag photos intentionally. But to expect security? It's not anything important, just a blog with some photos... There's nothing life-threatening there (unless you upload photos you'll get killed for) so it doesn't make sense to expect them to protect it like a bank would. Expecting secure systems leads to DRM-thinking, with "can't copy" flags on your email, which are defeated with a simple camera. Instead you need to realize there is no real safety net and not do unsafe things. Taking a picture, or posing for one, which you don't want to be seen isn't very safe. Putting it on a huge network site seems worse again. By letting the unwashed think that MySpace owes them security we're condoning their lack of concern with their own well-being.
Mainly though, I was ragging on Paypal for being fucking thieves.
Okay, if you want to keep something a secret, don't share it with anyone.
Putting it on the net just implies that you're trying to show some people, but not others. That's a mistake (see above). Even if you assume perfect cryptography and perfect server security, your friend could send it to someone else.
If 'we' have nukes, because 'they' have nukes, then I have partial responsibility in our next Hiroshima. It doesn't matter who is threatening me, if I let that nuke be used in my name, I'm as guilty as if I pushed the button myself. There may be a good reason to use the nuke. One that I'd accept, and push the button even. But if I'm morally liable for the use of the weapon, I think I'd like to hold onto it.
Yes, I am suggesting that every citizen fight. If we don't fight, and dodge a call to war, does our country deserve to stand? IMHO those willing to fight should wall off a smaller country that they can defend, leaving the unwilling to their doom. If we have to draft people to fight, that's a vote, where a majority of people said they're unwilling to fight. But we'll treat them like slaves, put a gun in their hand and shoot them if they don't walk towards to the enemy with it. We're defending our moral right to live unmolested - by taking and abusing slaves, threatening them with death and forcing them to kill people. Doesn't sound very right...
The war in Iraq is costing us a fortune. You think that if people had to give up half their possessions to support the war, that they would? Maybe some limited police action to remove Saddam who was a tyrant, but a 5-10 year ground war? Against an enemy indistinguishable from everyone else? That was such a good idea in Vietnam that we just had to have another one! As for the war, the only people screaming for it were idiots too stupid to consider that the evidence they were being given was likely untrue. Everyone else said, even then, "why Iraq?", "is Osama in Afghanistan?"
Besides, this wouldn't slow the military response. You could still buy a jet and be willing to fight at the drop of a hat - for whatever reason. I'd buy a share in a defensive weapon and be quick to use it, but very slow to ship it to somewhere it wasn't defending my house. At that, we've merely come up with a different algorithm for deciding on force density. I'd vote to keep more of the army here to defend against attacks, you'd vote to take the war to the enemy. If the current system you're handicapped by my resistance, my defense is weakened by your war. If we both controlled our own share of the war machine we wouldn't have to vote, I'd simply do what I wanted and you'd do what you wanted.
As for the damage of military weapons in the hands of drunks, you know that legal hunting rifles are essentially sniper rifles? That cars can be used very effectively to murder people, or to transport criminals after crimes? You understand that if I wanted you dead I could torch your house with a thrown bottle of gas, or use my huge obvious and numbered tank, to loudly lumber down your street. If it turns out I killed you for no reason, off the jail for the rest of my life. If I torched your house I probably wouldn't be caught. I'd rather live with large obvious weapons instead of small hidden weapons.
I've always lived in a society where nearly everyone had a 'sniper rifle', lots of people had dynamite, and could have killed anyone in town with it, likely without being caught. That *very* rarely happened. For social reasons. Those drunks you mention in the tank. They wouldn't have to only one, so not only could someone else stop them, but they'd be pretty obvious. There are about as many people who'd hop in their car and run someone over. Cars and tanks are both much bigger than people, so the deadliness isn't much different.
The Kent State massacre, was an example of where individuals would not have fired into the crowd, but soldiers under orders did. People who didn't have the excuse of a uniform to 'just follow orders' in would be less likely to do this.
Of course. Paypal has made more than a third of its money by closing down people's accounts for suspected problems and keeping the money. They're the biggest thieves who use Paypal, unfortunately they aren't the only ones. Luckily eBay is 50% criminal too, so few people notice.
Trust paypal and you might-as-well have given the money to a hobo at the bus station.
We should be able to own anything our government stocks. If it's too horrible for a citizen to buy, it's too horrid for us to be involved in using at all.
Also, if you and I owned a partial share in a combat aircraft we'd be quick to use it for defense, but quite unlikely to fly it across the world on a hunt for non-existent WMDs. Having to directly foot the bill for a war (not hidden in tax) would keep most wars from ever happening. Having an army that most of us will never actually see, and certainly don't see the results of, lets us use the army when we wouldn't be willing to shoot someone on the other side ourselves. No accountability in the use of the weapon because you don't have to look at the weapon to use it.
I support private ownership of military weapons because 1) it'll happen anyways 2) things like bioweapons are much scarier than a machine gun, or even a nuke and 3) trusting the military is trusting a bunch of individuals... individuals I'd trust more without an indoctrinating body capable of forcing them to perform immoral acts.
Sure, we'd get more tank-based bank robberies, but we'd kill far less foreigners in stupid wars. And maybe having to be responsible for our own defense would make us respect the difficulty involved and not only do it better, but perhaps piss off less people to make it easier.
If you think that owning a nuclear warhead is justified by their presence in the U.S. military arsenal, then I really have nothing more to say to you. Get some perspective and rejoin the discussion when you're capable of something deeper than meaningless polemic.
You lack the ability to turn printed words into the correct ideas - you then project your incorrect ideas onto other people and then attack them. Truly, it is you who should pay more attention to avoid being ignorant. Moreover, your tendency to dismiss people when they appear to disagree with you is childish.
I didn't say that I don't care if nukes get proliferated, just that I don't think passing a law will help. Can you see the type of person or group that wants a nuke stopping because California has a law against it? Not in the slightest. We've already got laws that we could put an attempted terrorist in jail with, conspiracy, intent to use said nuke for extortion, murder, etc.
Would it really help if we could also add another charge, 'deadly weapon using radioactivity'? If there was such a law it'd be used against people who dismantle smoke detectors, etc, and never deter a single terrorist.
Yes, I drew a connection between Pakistan, N. Korea, Iran, all wanting nukes despite knowing what the people around them and the large governments want, and individuals doing their best to hide their weapons. Does the behavior seem different? They are David Koresh, the Unabomber, McVeigh, etc, on a larger scale. People who believe they're above the law (international community), or have an excuse.
As to the existence of nukes at all, by supporting an armed force like ours, we're saying that we agree in the rule of might. We have nukes, as last-ditch reprisals, first-strike weapons, etc. If we have nukes, aren't we saying that as a people we think there are some uses for them? If it's permissible to give them to Bush, why should it be that far out that someone could have a personal tactical nuclear weapon? If they're unthinkable, we shouldn't have them at all. And if they aren't, we need to stop treating them like something magical.
Bio weapons are far scarier than nukes. Smaller, easier to obtain the tools and materials to make, cheaper, easier to deliver, potentially far more deadly... Why should we bother making nukes illegal, and miniguns, etc, etc, when we're facing and endless stream of new technologies which could kill us? There are already a ton of laws Timothy McVeigh broke that we could have used to arrest him. Ditto others. It's not like we needed a law against using truck bombs.
And finally, the second amendment. It says that 'well-regulated militia... being necessary to the security of a free state'. If militia meant the National Guard, they'd have said army. The NG is just reserves - even if they think otherwise. It certainly isn't 'the people', as there is an application procedure and it's not intended that everyone in the country be able to join. Israel or Switzerland might be able to claim this, as they attempt to make every citizen into a militia member.
IMHO, ideally we'd privately own every weapons - tanks, yup, bombs, yup. I'd rather trust my neighbors with our tank, which we packed up and went to Iraq in only if we agreed with the cause, than I would the government which can compel me to do things I'd find morally repugnant. If I had to pay for the bombs, and be held personally responsible for misuse, I'd think twice - soldiers just press the button.
I'm sure that when they wrote the 2nd amendment they had in mind an invasion by Britain, or other major power, but they fought a rebellion against an occupying force so I think they see the need to fight or defend even against your 'legal' rulers.
I think it's intended to keep the individual people (not just a few professional soldiers stationed in their city) armed and prepared to fight off any threat to their freedom. Not so that we will, but so that we won't have to. A government ruling indivi
You honestly believe that a branch of the government-run armed forces is the intended protection against an abusive government?
Doesn't that sound silly?
As for allowing people to have nuclear weapons, I don't see how making guns illegal has gotten rid of them, or how all the campaigning against nukes has stopped countries from trying. If we make them illegal they'll still make them, but we won't know. Making them will only get easier. Controlling radioactive materials would help prevent it, but ignores the *much* larger threat of bio-weapons. While I don't think we should have personal nukes, I don't think a law about it would help at all.
As for their 2nd amendment coverage, nukes fall under 'arms' (arms race), and thus I do think the constitution covers them. Not all nukes are 100Mt weapons, there are 0.3Kt tactical nukes. Ones intended for infantry warfare. If we authorize our government to have them, aren't we saying we think there are times they are desirable to have? If the idea was to let us rebel, do you think they meant to limit us to non-scary weapons?
Are you any more dead from an A-10 minigun than a 22 pistol? If you expect either you can get to safety behind sandbags. If you don't expect trouble, either can kill you in an instant.
However, if the national guard rolled tanks into town because of anti-war protests and started illegally detaining and torturing protesters, that minigun would potentially be a lot more useful.
Look at the DC sniper... They used a.223 rifle, not something big and 'dangerous'. People are soft. Knives kill people. Worrying about how big the hole is seems pointless.
Bullshit. Plenty of other companies have stepped up to say they could have, and even if there weren't, the job could have been broken into sub-contracts.
All they had to do was open it for bids, see that only one company showed up, and select them. If, there really wasn't any competition.
Ratzinger said "The process against Galileo was reasonable and just." (That being censorship, life imprisonment, ridicule, etc.)
The current pope is saying that a scientist who was abused for speaking his mind (and happening to be right) deserved what he got. And he's going to go speak to scientists and academics. The very people he supports imprisoning and abusing. He's the leader of the organization that acted this way, and he's affirming his support for those actions.
You don't see that as being insulting? That's like a Nazi sympathizer speaking in Tel-Aviv.
Then he chose to act hurt, as if the reason they didn't want him there wasn't plain as day, and his own fault.
"Oh poor me, those professors don't have open minds."
That's why they mocked him. Total lack of realistic world-view and his trying to appear the victim.
Your idiot is showing. I didn't complain that I'm emasculated by someone with a higher-level character, even if they bought it.
I just think that games should be fun. If you like playing at one level, cool. If he likes playing at another, cool. There's no reason why you should be upset because someone isn't spending as much time in the crap as you are. If what you're doing isn't fun, do something more fun.
Quake is a good game for this. I can jump back into the game, play the low-level maps with just a shotgun, jump to playing higher levels, play as long as I like. This is fun. If I play GTA3 I can steal a lowly cab, go find one of my carefully collected tanks, or turn on cheat codes and go crazy.
WoW is full of people who gripe about cheaters and gold farmers more than they play the game.
If these people actually liked playing WoW they'd laugh and say "You're missing the best part!" Instead, they know WoW blows and they wish they could buy gold too, because grinding to get access to a feature is lame.
If people could just select what they wanted to play, this would be over. You'd have some newbs selecting max-level characters and getting amusingly whacked, some old-timers who really like low-level play, and some people who climb the ladder. That would be a better game. People who played wouldn't be bothered by people who are trying not to play.
But this will *never* happen because everyone's too busy polishing their little penile substitute. You hear me calling for people doing what they want as a pussification... because I refuse to waste time grinding? As you're camping monster spawns for days to get gold to buy a trinket I'm doing tank-donuts on cop cars in GTA - which of us is acting like a pussy? I take what I want, you take what you're given.
The real pussies here are those (like you) who are so upset that I might be having fun that you want more rules to make me do exactly the same dull shit you do, because you don't have the guts to quit. Grow up.
Are you having trouble googling for "Bush 'no-bid contracts'"?
Halliburton:
"the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." As for who was hurt, duh!? The competitors who likely had a more sound business (not needing to rely on government malfeasance) and didn't get the contracts. Their workers. The economy in general as it becomes known how the government is printing and burning money. The people as their country is stolen from under them. The Iraqis as the company supposed to be rebuilding their infrastructure doesn't...
Ratzinger:
"At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just." Considering the asshole justified the treatment of Galileo, that being oppression, censorship, slander, imprisonment for the rest of his life, and excommunication, I can see why the scientists don't respect him.
The 6th century fucktard would toss any of them in the slammer if he could, to promote his lies. He blatantly supported those who did this even where it has been PROVED that Galileo was right. Do you think this might make the university professors disrespect him? He doesn't believe the earth revolves around the sun, or if he does, still supports the church's torture of someone who said so.
That sort of stifles academic freedom.
If you can't see that flat-earth control freaks who justify their actions with religious nonsense might not be welcome addressing a university - you know, a place of learning - you're really daft.
He should be lucky they aren't suggesting tar and feathers. He still supports the ruin of one of them and wants their attention and respect!
And where do you get off demanding respect for believing in an imaginary friend? Try living in the real world.
Yes, less government, but also closer to the people. Federal government can't react very well to your needs or concerns, being responsible for everyone. Your little city, yes. Your county, and state, less so.
Besides, RP doesn't seem to want to abolish to constitution which is the best part of federal law.
Galileo was harassed by the church, forced to recant truth, put under house arrest, and his books were banned.
For a good reason? Hell no. The fucking church could have just shut up. That's what everyone else does when some yahoo says something crazy. He wasn't running a state school. He wasn't abusing governmental authority. He was telling people what he discovered!
In 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger commented on the Galileo affair, and quoted philosopher Paul Feyerabend as saying that the Church's verdict against Galileo had been "rational and just". And they're still doing it. That's the motherfucking pope. No wonder they don't want the asshole near them.
Said like someone who sees criticism of religion as bigotry.
The Pope claims to speak directly to god, and that this god is the arbiter of factual correctness. Yes, I think that mocks pretty much everything *any* scientist stands for.
Slashdot Mirror
What value do I provide if I agree to be a tester for someone, but find no bugs? Apparently none, but I'd still expect to be paid for it.
Similarly, the value of having users is obvious. Even if no specific user is overly useful, each of them is testing the software (something of value to you) and advertising the project, if only by their part in downloading it and inflating the statistics.
It's a classic free razor/buy the blades model. We give away access, hoping that the people we've reached will become valuable contributors. Their 'payment' up front isn't 'enough', but we hope to make it up on increased contributions and such over the years. If you can be said to own a razor (after theoretically not paying a reasonable price) then the same can be said for the GPL being binding on both parties. You merely agree to do a simply activity which will likely encourage more later. I give you copyright license in trade.
The no-consideration argument only works with people who don't see a clear business value in releasing GPLed code. For everyone else the deal is very clear.
he argument about there being no consideration is weak. The author gets access to GPLed software, users, testers, and advertising. Regardless of what the GPL is, it creates contractual obligations in both parties, obligations that can't simply be shrugged off after acceptance.
I think the parent's point was that even their own changes become encumbered by using your GPL'd patches. Then they must go further back and reinvent more to be at code they own fully.
I don't understand the no-consideration angle. GPLing your project is a great way to get publicity and attract developers. That's got at least as much value as a Want-Ad posting. And testers aren't free.
The user receives software and the right to use it, the developer receives goodwill, testers, and advertising.
The only problem is that it's not direct. You can accept the GPL even if you live in a bubble and never contribute. There might not be consideration in any given instant.
Contracts of sale don't explicitly spell out that they are irrevocable, it's how sales work.
Similarly, you can't reasonably write a license that doesn't require your participation, doesn't record a start date, can be re-entered by the person at will, can be re-granted at will, etc, to be limited in span. It would require future communication to even allow the GPL to be revocable, something it does not require. You need never speak to the author, let alone after accepting the GPL.
You could not reasonably expect to be able to revoke this contract, and thus could not reasonably expect to have it revoked upon you. Many contracts and licenses contain language, and requirements (paying for access, asking permission again in x years, etc). There are clear ways to write these contracts and the GPL contains none of them. Further, the author picked the license, presumably because he understood it and liked it. If this was a case of a user who entered into a GPL-like contract with little knowledge, they might reasonably make the claim that the irrevocable nature was unreasonable. Instead, the author, the only party with the ability to negotiate terms, explicitly picked this license.
Finally, I don't see why a later indication of his changing intent matters. He offered a deal, people accepted it. Case closed. He seems to have decided that he shouldn't have offered that deal, but he did and is bound by it. It's the nature of people to feel buyer's/seller's remorse when they find the true value of things, but sales are still final (with some exceptions).
An ongoing contract, sure. But the GPL acceptance is instantaneous, like a contract of sale. At that moment these people were given the right to re-release the software, under their own GPL license. He can cancel his original offer (provided he communicates his cancellation properly and to the right people) but he can't force other to play along.
The GPL isn't written as being limited in length, and offering a period of use. It's all or nothing, no rights, or full rights to redistribute under the GPL. Expecting that to be revocable is like expecting your car purchase to be revocable, years later after the fact. If your purchase was a lease... otherwise, no.
Copyright law isn't relevant here. Nor, is his original offer. He certainly isn''t releasing anymore copies of the work, but his deal (accepted license) with original downloaders can't be canceled by his later actions.
He's within his rights to stop sharing, but can't force others to heed his request.
IMHO it makes sense for us to expect MySpace to not unflag photos intentionally. But to expect security? It's not anything important, just a blog with some photos... There's nothing life-threatening there (unless you upload photos you'll get killed for) so it doesn't make sense to expect them to protect it like a bank would. Expecting secure systems leads to DRM-thinking, with "can't copy" flags on your email, which are defeated with a simple camera. Instead you need to realize there is no real safety net and not do unsafe things. Taking a picture, or posing for one, which you don't want to be seen isn't very safe. Putting it on a huge network site seems worse again. By letting the unwashed think that MySpace owes them security we're condoning their lack of concern with their own well-being.
Mainly though, I was ragging on Paypal for being fucking thieves.
Okay, if you want to keep something a secret, don't share it with anyone.
Putting it on the net just implies that you're trying to show some people, but not others. That's a mistake (see above). Even if you assume perfect cryptography and perfect server security, your friend could send it to someone else.
If 'we' have nukes, because 'they' have nukes, then I have partial responsibility in our next Hiroshima. It doesn't matter who is threatening me, if I let that nuke be used in my name, I'm as guilty as if I pushed the button myself. There may be a good reason to use the nuke. One that I'd accept, and push the button even. But if I'm morally liable for the use of the weapon, I think I'd like to hold onto it.
Yes, I am suggesting that every citizen fight. If we don't fight, and dodge a call to war, does our country deserve to stand? IMHO those willing to fight should wall off a smaller country that they can defend, leaving the unwilling to their doom. If we have to draft people to fight, that's a vote, where a majority of people said they're unwilling to fight. But we'll treat them like slaves, put a gun in their hand and shoot them if they don't walk towards to the enemy with it. We're defending our moral right to live unmolested - by taking and abusing slaves, threatening them with death and forcing them to kill people. Doesn't sound very right...
The war in Iraq is costing us a fortune. You think that if people had to give up half their possessions to support the war, that they would? Maybe some limited police action to remove Saddam who was a tyrant, but a 5-10 year ground war? Against an enemy indistinguishable from everyone else? That was such a good idea in Vietnam that we just had to have another one! As for the war, the only people screaming for it were idiots too stupid to consider that the evidence they were being given was likely untrue. Everyone else said, even then, "why Iraq?", "is Osama in Afghanistan?"
Besides, this wouldn't slow the military response. You could still buy a jet and be willing to fight at the drop of a hat - for whatever reason. I'd buy a share in a defensive weapon and be quick to use it, but very slow to ship it to somewhere it wasn't defending my house. At that, we've merely come up with a different algorithm for deciding on force density. I'd vote to keep more of the army here to defend against attacks, you'd vote to take the war to the enemy. If the current system you're handicapped by my resistance, my defense is weakened by your war. If we both controlled our own share of the war machine we wouldn't have to vote, I'd simply do what I wanted and you'd do what you wanted.
As for the damage of military weapons in the hands of drunks, you know that legal hunting rifles are essentially sniper rifles? That cars can be used very effectively to murder people, or to transport criminals after crimes? You understand that if I wanted you dead I could torch your house with a thrown bottle of gas, or use my huge obvious and numbered tank, to loudly lumber down your street. If it turns out I killed you for no reason, off the jail for the rest of my life. If I torched your house I probably wouldn't be caught. I'd rather live with large obvious weapons instead of small hidden weapons.
I've always lived in a society where nearly everyone had a 'sniper rifle', lots of people had dynamite, and could have killed anyone in town with it, likely without being caught. That *very* rarely happened. For social reasons. Those drunks you mention in the tank. They wouldn't have to only one, so not only could someone else stop them, but they'd be pretty obvious. There are about as many people who'd hop in their car and run someone over. Cars and tanks are both much bigger than people, so the deadliness isn't much different.
The Kent State massacre, was an example of where individuals would not have fired into the crowd, but soldiers under orders did. People who didn't have the excuse of a uniform to 'just follow orders' in would be less likely to do this.
Of course. Paypal has made more than a third of its money by closing down people's accounts for suspected problems and keeping the money. They're the biggest thieves who use Paypal, unfortunately they aren't the only ones. Luckily eBay is 50% criminal too, so few people notice.
Trust paypal and you might-as-well have given the money to a hobo at the bus station.
We should be able to own anything our government stocks. If it's too horrible for a citizen to buy, it's too horrid for us to be involved in using at all.
... individuals I'd trust more without an indoctrinating body capable of forcing them to perform immoral acts.
Also, if you and I owned a partial share in a combat aircraft we'd be quick to use it for defense, but quite unlikely to fly it across the world on a hunt for non-existent WMDs. Having to directly foot the bill for a war (not hidden in tax) would keep most wars from ever happening. Having an army that most of us will never actually see, and certainly don't see the results of, lets us use the army when we wouldn't be willing to shoot someone on the other side ourselves. No accountability in the use of the weapon because you don't have to look at the weapon to use it.
I support private ownership of military weapons because 1) it'll happen anyways 2) things like bioweapons are much scarier than a machine gun, or even a nuke and 3) trusting the military is trusting a bunch of individuals
Sure, we'd get more tank-based bank robberies, but we'd kill far less foreigners in stupid wars. And maybe having to be responsible for our own defense would make us respect the difficulty involved and not only do it better, but perhaps piss off less people to make it easier.
If you think that owning a nuclear warhead is justified by their presence in the U.S. military arsenal, then I really have nothing more to say to you. Get some perspective and rejoin the discussion when you're capable of something deeper than meaningless polemic.
You lack the ability to turn printed words into the correct ideas - you then project your incorrect ideas onto other people and then attack them. Truly, it is you who should pay more attention to avoid being ignorant. Moreover, your tendency to dismiss people when they appear to disagree with you is childish.
... being necessary to the security of a free state'. If militia meant the National Guard, they'd have said army. The NG is just reserves - even if they think otherwise. It certainly isn't 'the people', as there is an application procedure and it's not intended that everyone in the country be able to join. Israel or Switzerland might be able to claim this, as they attempt to make every citizen into a militia member.
I didn't say that I don't care if nukes get proliferated, just that I don't think passing a law will help. Can you see the type of person or group that wants a nuke stopping because California has a law against it? Not in the slightest. We've already got laws that we could put an attempted terrorist in jail with, conspiracy, intent to use said nuke for extortion, murder, etc.
Would it really help if we could also add another charge, 'deadly weapon using radioactivity'? If there was such a law it'd be used against people who dismantle smoke detectors, etc, and never deter a single terrorist.
Yes, I drew a connection between Pakistan, N. Korea, Iran, all wanting nukes despite knowing what the people around them and the large governments want, and individuals doing their best to hide their weapons. Does the behavior seem different? They are David Koresh, the Unabomber, McVeigh, etc, on a larger scale. People who believe they're above the law (international community), or have an excuse.
As to the existence of nukes at all, by supporting an armed force like ours, we're saying that we agree in the rule of might. We have nukes, as last-ditch reprisals, first-strike weapons, etc. If we have nukes, aren't we saying that as a people we think there are some uses for them? If it's permissible to give them to Bush, why should it be that far out that someone could have a personal tactical nuclear weapon? If they're unthinkable, we shouldn't have them at all. And if they aren't, we need to stop treating them like something magical.
Bio weapons are far scarier than nukes. Smaller, easier to obtain the tools and materials to make, cheaper, easier to deliver, potentially far more deadly... Why should we bother making nukes illegal, and miniguns, etc, etc, when we're facing and endless stream of new technologies which could kill us? There are already a ton of laws Timothy McVeigh broke that we could have used to arrest him. Ditto others. It's not like we needed a law against using truck bombs.
And finally, the second amendment. It says that 'well-regulated militia
IMHO, ideally we'd privately own every weapons - tanks, yup, bombs, yup. I'd rather trust my neighbors with our tank, which we packed up and went to Iraq in only if we agreed with the cause, than I would the government which can compel me to do things I'd find morally repugnant. If I had to pay for the bombs, and be held personally responsible for misuse, I'd think twice - soldiers just press the button.
I'm sure that when they wrote the 2nd amendment they had in mind an invasion by Britain, or other major power, but they fought a rebellion against an occupying force so I think they see the need to fight or defend even against your 'legal' rulers.
I think it's intended to keep the individual people (not just a few professional soldiers stationed in their city) armed and prepared to fight off any threat to their freedom. Not so that we will, but so that we won't have to. A government ruling indivi
You honestly believe that a branch of the government-run armed forces is the intended protection against an abusive government?
Doesn't that sound silly?
As for allowing people to have nuclear weapons, I don't see how making guns illegal has gotten rid of them, or how all the campaigning against nukes has stopped countries from trying. If we make them illegal they'll still make them, but we won't know. Making them will only get easier. Controlling radioactive materials would help prevent it, but ignores the *much* larger threat of bio-weapons. While I don't think we should have personal nukes, I don't think a law about it would help at all.
As for their 2nd amendment coverage, nukes fall under 'arms' (arms race), and thus I do think the constitution covers them. Not all nukes are 100Mt weapons, there are 0.3Kt tactical nukes. Ones intended for infantry warfare. If we authorize our government to have them, aren't we saying we think there are times they are desirable to have? If the idea was to let us rebel, do you think they meant to limit us to non-scary weapons?
Are you any more dead from an A-10 minigun than a 22 pistol? If you expect either you can get to safety behind sandbags. If you don't expect trouble, either can kill you in an instant.
.223 rifle, not something big and 'dangerous'. People are soft. Knives kill people. Worrying about how big the hole is seems pointless.
However, if the national guard rolled tanks into town because of anti-war protests and started illegally detaining and torturing protesters, that minigun would potentially be a lot more useful.
Look at the DC sniper... They used a
Bullshit. Plenty of other companies have stepped up to say they could have, and even if there weren't, the job could have been broken into sub-contracts.
All they had to do was open it for bids, see that only one company showed up, and select them. If, there really wasn't any competition.
You only have to take the lowest *qualified* bid.
But they didn't do that...
Ratzinger said "The process against Galileo was reasonable and just." (That being censorship, life imprisonment, ridicule, etc.)
The current pope is saying that a scientist who was abused for speaking his mind (and happening to be right) deserved what he got. And he's going to go speak to scientists and academics. The very people he supports imprisoning and abusing. He's the leader of the organization that acted this way, and he's affirming his support for those actions.
You don't see that as being insulting? That's like a Nazi sympathizer speaking in Tel-Aviv.
Then he chose to act hurt, as if the reason they didn't want him there wasn't plain as day, and his own fault.
"Oh poor me, those professors don't have open minds."
That's why they mocked him. Total lack of realistic world-view and his trying to appear the victim.
Your idiot is showing. I didn't complain that I'm emasculated by someone with a higher-level character, even if they bought it.
I just think that games should be fun. If you like playing at one level, cool. If he likes playing at another, cool. There's no reason why you should be upset because someone isn't spending as much time in the crap as you are. If what you're doing isn't fun, do something more fun.
Quake is a good game for this. I can jump back into the game, play the low-level maps with just a shotgun, jump to playing higher levels, play as long as I like. This is fun. If I play GTA3 I can steal a lowly cab, go find one of my carefully collected tanks, or turn on cheat codes and go crazy.
WoW is full of people who gripe about cheaters and gold farmers more than they play the game.
If these people actually liked playing WoW they'd laugh and say "You're missing the best part!" Instead, they know WoW blows and they wish they could buy gold too, because grinding to get access to a feature is lame.
If people could just select what they wanted to play, this would be over. You'd have some newbs selecting max-level characters and getting amusingly whacked, some old-timers who really like low-level play, and some people who climb the ladder. That would be a better game. People who played wouldn't be bothered by people who are trying not to play.
But this will *never* happen because everyone's too busy polishing their little penile substitute. You hear me calling for people doing what they want as a pussification... because I refuse to waste time grinding? As you're camping monster spawns for days to get gold to buy a trinket I'm doing tank-donuts on cop cars in GTA - which of us is acting like a pussy? I take what I want, you take what you're given.
The real pussies here are those (like you) who are so upset that I might be having fun that you want more rules to make me do exactly the same dull shit you do, because you don't have the guts to quit. Grow up.
Halliburton: "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." As for who was hurt, duh!? The competitors who likely had a more sound business (not needing to rely on government malfeasance) and didn't get the contracts. Their workers. The economy in general as it becomes known how the government is printing and burning money. The people as their country is stolen from under them. The Iraqis as the company supposed to be rebuilding their infrastructure doesn't...
Who doesn't suffer?
The 6th century fucktard would toss any of them in the slammer if he could, to promote his lies. He blatantly supported those who did this even where it has been PROVED that Galileo was right. Do you think this might make the university professors disrespect him? He doesn't believe the earth revolves around the sun, or if he does, still supports the church's torture of someone who said so.
That sort of stifles academic freedom.
If you can't see that flat-earth control freaks who justify their actions with religious nonsense might not be welcome addressing a university - you know, a place of learning - you're really daft.
He should be lucky they aren't suggesting tar and feathers. He still supports the ruin of one of them and wants their attention and respect!
And where do you get off demanding respect for believing in an imaginary friend? Try living in the real world.
Yes, less government, but also closer to the people. Federal government can't react very well to your needs or concerns, being responsible for everyone. Your little city, yes. Your county, and state, less so.
Besides, RP doesn't seem to want to abolish to constitution which is the best part of federal law.
Galileo was harassed by the church, forced to recant truth, put under house arrest, and his books were banned.
For a good reason? Hell no. The fucking church could have just shut up. That's what everyone else does when some yahoo says something crazy. He wasn't running a state school. He wasn't abusing governmental authority. He was telling people what he discovered! In 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger commented on the Galileo affair, and quoted philosopher Paul Feyerabend as saying that the Church's verdict against Galileo had been "rational and just". And they're still doing it. That's the motherfucking pope. No wonder they don't want the asshole near them.
People believe in no-bid contracts for multi-billion dollar projects?
Said like someone who sees criticism of religion as bigotry.
The Pope claims to speak directly to god, and that this god is the arbiter of factual correctness. Yes, I think that mocks pretty much everything *any* scientist stands for.
His right to speak? Or the right of an organization to choose speakers who don't mock everything they stand for?
The pope has a right to speak. Open his bedroom window and there are probably people who even care to hear it.